Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning and Zoning denies variance for oversized entrance pillars at 7100 Rio Grand Boulevard
Summary
The Planning and Zoning Commission denied a variance request for entrance pilasters that exceed the eight-foot height limit at 7100 Rio Grand Blvd, citing inconsistency with the village master plan and a self-created hardship; commissioners set a compliance date and discussed appeal timelines.
The Los Ranchos de Albuquerque Planning and Zoning Commission on Dec. 9 denied a variance that would have allowed entrance pilasters at 7100 Rio Grand Boulevard to exceed the village's eight-foot height limit.
Director Schultz told the commission that staff recommended denial because the proposed 9-to-10-foot pilasters conflict with the village master plan's emphasis on preserving rural, low-profile frontage treatments, and because the condition is self-created: the pillars were built without a permit. "After reviewing the application, staff has found that these criteria have not been met," Schultz said.
Property owners Mark and Sherry Cordova, who testified in support of keeping the gates, said the construction followed an effort to repair a collapsing fence and to improve safety and aesthetics after they purchased the property. Sherry Cordova said the work was "very much out in the open" and apologized to the commission for not obtaining a permit in advance.
Commissioners questioned whether approving the variance would set a precedent for other prominent entry features along Rio Grand. Commissioner Martinez pressed staff on whether the decision would affect future enforcement, and Schultz said variances are evaluated on a property-by-property basis.
After deliberation Commissioner Barrow moved to "deny VA25-05 subject to the findings of the director," a motion seconded by Commissioner Haywood. The roll-call vote recorded yes votes from Commissioners Barrow, Martinez, Haywood and Homeman and a no vote from Commissioner Tagle Petra; Commissioners Baldwin and Edward were recused from this quasi-judicial matter. The commission's decision denies the variance.
The findings included a compliance requirement (the commission discussed a February 16 deadline to bring the pillars into compliance if there is no appeal). Director Schultz and commissioners explained that an appeal to the board of trustees would pause enforcement timelines and that the board would set any final compliance schedule if an appeal were filed.
Neighbors and attendees offered mixed views during public comment. Supporters praised the gates' appearance and the owners' efforts to restore the property; one neighbor, Vincent Sanchez, said he was "indifferent" aesthetically but criticized building first and seeking forgiveness later.
Next steps: the applicants may appeal the commission's decision to the village board of trustees within the statutory appeal period, or proceed with the modifications required by the commission's findings.
